Remove attachment

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states only that the attachment is deleted by id, but does not mention irreversibility, required permissions, cascading effects on parent items, or behavior when the id does not exist.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise, using only a few words to convey the action and target. It is front-loaded and contains no filler or redundant explanation.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's low complexity (one required parameter, no output schema, simple deletion action), the description is minimally sufficient. However, it leaves gaps around deletion semantics and usage context, so it is not fully complete for an agent to confidently invoke it in all relevant scenarios.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema already fully describes the single parameter attachment_id as 'Attachment id to delete', achieving 100% schema description coverage. The description adds no meaningful semantic beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states a specific action ('remove attachment') and the target resource ('Attachment') with the mechanism ('by id'). It is immediately understandable, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like kiwi_case_remove_attachment or kiwi_plan_remove_attachment beyond the id-based approach.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided about when to use this generic remove-by-id tool versus the parent-specific attachment removal tools among siblings. The description implies usage only if you have an attachment_id, but offers no context, prerequisites, or alternatives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.